View
217
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Flavia Caviezel & Priska Gisler _This publication is the product of two events organised by SARN, the Swiss Artistic Research Network, that were dedicated to the questions of how artistic research funding in Switzerland has developed, which research topics have been taken up and which expectations and ideas will persist regarding the future importance and positioning of this research field. Of special interest was the perspective of the actors involved who are devoting themselves to promoting this research in universities of the arts in Switzerland - SARN WORKSHOP BOOKLETS _ The booklet which you are holding in your hands right now (or reading online) is one of a series of reflections from the SARN-workshops compiled to capture the seriousness as well as the dynamic lightness of the work and to present some issues of Artistic Research in a comprehensible manner to an audience interested in tapping into and continuing the discussions. Julie Harboe & Federica Martini.
Citation preview
ALL WE NEED IS (ART) RESEARCH?
FLAVIA CAVIEZEL
PRISKA GISLER
STATUS AND PERSPECTIVES ON ARTISTIC RESEARCH AT SWISS UNIVERSITIES OF THE ARTS
SARN :: Swiss Artistic Research Network
SARN - Swiss Artistic Research Network represents artists and
researchers from the seven Swiss universities of the arts. Based
on the idea of enriching the debates and practices of artistic
research in Switzerland through open exchanges, group
activities (workshops), publications and symposia, SARN
wishes to represent and integrate the points of view of the
artistic community in general (artists, institutions, universi-
ties, public authorities and foundations supporting culture
and arts) and to promote the specific contribution of artistic
research in Switzerland and internationally.
ALL WE NEED IS (ART) RESEARCH?
FLAVIA CAVIEZEL
PRISKA GISLER
STATUS AND PERSPECTIVES ON ARTISTIC RESEARCH AT SWISS UNIVERSITIES OF THE ARTS
2
SWISS ARTISTIC RESEARCH NETWORK WORKSHOP BOOKLETS
JULIE HARBOE
FEDERICA MARTINI
Swiss Artistic Research Network has been an active net-
work for artists and other researchers working within the Swiss
art schools since 2011. The network supports an authentic
dialogue on how and why artists do research, what the condi-
tions are and how this work is made accessible to the public.
One of SARN’s main activities between 2011 and 2014
has been a series of workshops where projects (often on-
going) were presented, discussed and thus ’used’ by all
participants to gain an understanding of the practice of
this emerging field. Developing an open discussion based
on volunteer contributions across institutional borders
has been exceptional and rewarding.
The workshops took place in the schools in Bern, Basel,
Zurich, Luzern, Geneva and Sierre on long afternoons in
larger and smaller rooms in all sorts of seating arrangements
and – as was noticed by guests and contributors – cultivated
a particularly fruitful informality. Over the years the activities
have shown us that it is possible to support an active and in-
dependent dialogue on artistic research between the practi-
tioners of the different schools.
The booklet you are holding right now (or are reading
online) was written by Flavia Caviezel and Priska Gisler. In two
distinct parts it a) presents an investigation they undertook
surveying Swiss publicly funded projects of artistic research
3
and b) excerpts from a panel and discussion organized with
three protagonists engaged in the organisation of artistic re-
search in Switzerland.
While this does not lay claim to any completeness, Flavia
Caviezel and Priska Gisler are interested in contributing to
the discussion about which kind of artistic research has been
funded in order to support the ongoing debate. Voices and
input from all actors in the field are needed to complete the
picture of artistic research in Switzerland and this is more
than ever SARN’s objective.
4
ALL WE NEED IS (ART) RESEARCH?
FLAVIA CAVIEZEL
PRISKA GISLER
STATUS AND PERSPECTIVES ON ARTISTIC RESEARCH AT SWISS UNIVERSITIES OF THE ARTS
INTRODUCTION
This publication is the product of two events organised
by SARN, the Swiss Artistic Research Network, that were
dedicated to the questions of how artistic research funding
in Switzerland has developed, which research topics have
been taken up and which expectations and ideas will per-
sist regarding the future importance and positioning of this
research field. Of special interest was the perspective of the
actors involved who are devoting themselves to promoting
this research in universities of the arts in Switzerland.
There is no clear agreement about exactly when system-
atic research involving the arts began. What is sure is that
the debate regarding how in, with and through art research
could be carried out – not only in other European countries,
also in Switzerland – intensified around the most recent turn
of the century due to the Bologna Reform (Wilson & van
5
Ruiten, 2013, p. 23). However, already in the 1960s, the shift to
conceptual art had brought about a changed understanding
of the knowledge-generating, critical and analytical poten-
tial of artistic practice (Rebentisch, 2013). Furthermore, the
1970s and 1980s were accompanied by a growing examina-
tion of theory and theoretical questions relating to cultural
practices (Wilson & van Ruiten, 2013, p. 24). This background
information is important if one wishes to emphasise that
questions regarding artistic research have arisen not only
in the institutional framework of art academies and official
funding institutions but that for many years artists themselves
have been dealing with research questions. Additionally, the
various artistic fields – literature, film, theatre, performance
and fine arts – have at various times turned to research from
the perspective of a multitude of attitudes and questions, in
Switzerland as well.
The establishment of artistic research in higher edu-
cation went hand in hand with a practice turn in contem-
porary theory construction that is with an increased
emphasis on and exploration of practice: “[K]nowledge is con-
stituted (rather than found) in and through practices, be they
scientific or artistic”, writes Henk Borgdorff, for instance, one
of the many doyens of artistic research (Borgdorff, 2014, p.
148). In the meantime, a great many results stemming from
specific research projects have been produced. These have
come in the form of books, DVDs, exhibitions, performances
and other publication formats, presented and made available
to audiences both narrow and broad.
6
In addition to the amount and variety of publicly funded
research initiatives, which we would like to explore in this
booklet, there has been repeated criticism of the develop-
ments in the area of so-called artistic research. Doubts have
been expressed, for example, regarding the precision of its
procedures, the intentions and the modes of knowledge.1 In
the context of debates on knowledge and research terms and
definitions, these critical voices should be considered a con-
sequence of the inclusion of the arts amongst institutional
research. The shift toward alternatives, thus, e.g., artistic
practices, has also led to upheavals and dislocations in terms
of the disciplinary and institutional fabric of knowledge
generation because not only the arts themselves were chal-
lenged through this practice turn, but the universities and
many long established disciplines were as well. It is these
modified conditions that have led to more self-reflective
practices both in the arts and in the sciences. In the panel
discussion in June 2013 we wished to address such trends in
conversation with three protagonists from institutions
involved in and responsible for the development of artistic
research.
In Switzerland, artistic research has now developed its
own independent areas of artistic thought and research and
tested new procedures in conjunction with the humanities,
and the social and natural sciences. Meanwhile, many teams
work in an inter-, trans- and antidisciplinary fashion and
are active within an open research concept.2 Knowledge
1 E.g. in the broadcast „Künstlerische Forschung – neuer Wein in alten Schläuchen?“ on radio SRF 2 Kultur, Reflexe, 13.2.2 Cf. e.g., universities of the arts’ projects funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF), such as “Archiv des Ortes”, “Computersignale”, “Grenzgang”, “Holyspace–Holyways”, “Präparat Bergsturz”, “RhyCycling”, “Size Matters”.
7
production, presentation and reception, as well as the re-
flection of the related processes occupy a central role in these
research constellations. That is why we became interested in
where, how and with whom artistic research creates know-
ledge, how it is presented and what status it has in com-
parison to other knowledge forms.
The present booklet undertakes the task of giving an
account of artistic research in Switzerland on the one hand
while also looking forward into the future on the other. The
first part goes back to a workshop that was conducted at the
end of 2012 in the context of SARN at the Bern University of
the Arts (Berner Hochschule der Künste) in which an over-
view of past and ongoing research projects in Switzerland
was presented and discussed. The results in this booklet are
a revised and updated outcome of a survey on the deve-
lopment of funded artistic research projects in Switzerland.
The second part offers some insights into a panel discus-
sion that took place at the University of Applied Sciences and
Arts Northwestern Switzerland (Fachhochschule Nordwest-
schweiz, FHNW) in Basel, which along with a balance of what
has been accomplished also took up some views and trends.
8
ARTISTIC RESEARCH IN SWITZERLAND (2000–2015): TOPICS, PRACTICES AND TEAM CONSTELLATIONS
The integration of the departments of health, social work
and the arts in the Swiss universities of applied sciences took
place in the context of the Bologna Reform in 2005 (Camp/
Siska, 2011, p. 13). Art schools became universities of the arts
that were from now on committed within the framework of the
quadruple performance mandate (teaching, research, further
education, services) to develop research competencies
as a result. The research competencies and the research
know-how were built up in particular with support and
guidance from the Swiss Federal Office for Professional
Education and Technology, the Bundesamt für Berufsbildung
und Techno- logie (BBT, today: State Secretariat for Educa-
tion, Research and Innovation, SERI) (Camp/Siska, 2011, p. III).
To do so, the Swiss research funding institutions made re-
sources available, which were then increasingly sought out for
the universities of the arts to exploit. Already in 1999 the DORE
– DO REsearch – was founded as a joint funding programme
from the Commission for Technology and Innovation (CTI) and
the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF). The programme
addressed in particular the new higher education areas of
health, social work and the arts (Camp/KFH, 2008, p. 12). This re-
search funding was specifically provisioned for applied research
questions and to promote research at universities of applied
sciences and arts. From 2004 to 2011, the SNSF itself continued
the DORE programme without CTI. In autumn 2011, project fund-
ing for the arts (as well as the research of all other universities of
applied sciences and other practice-oriented project funding)
was completely conjoined into the regular SNSF or CTI funding
(Camp/KFH, 2008, p. 12) and DORE was dismantled.
9
One report from the Rectors’ Conference of the Swiss
Universities of Applied Sciences (known and referred to
here by their acronym KFH from the German: Konferenz der
Fachhochschulen) notes that by 2007 DORE had already
funded 71 projects in ‘art/design’ and ‘music/theatre’ – thus,
research took place at a time when the performance man-
date of research for the universities of the arts had only just
been established (Camp, 2008, p. 12). Thereby, research was
already gaining momentum at art universities before any
such research performance mandate was established.
Artistic research increasingly became a subject in the Swiss
art research field during these years.3 First off, researchers
in Switzerland – like their European colleagues – often
asked from a meta-perspective how artistic research is to
be understood or conceived of, in order to then thoroughly
debate its legitimacy (Wilson & van Ruiten, 2013, p. 25).4 In
the course of these approx. 10 years, a greater differentiation
in various areas of artistic research became apparent, even
if the fields often overlap (e.g., design research and artistic
research; artistic music research etc.), as is still the case today.
The projects also differed with regard to their approaches,
3 Since the early 1990s in the English-speaking world, artistic re-search has stood for promoted development of research in par-ticular within the art academy environment and in a certain sense also for the internal reflection of design and art brought about by its academisation (Frayling, 1993). The field of artistic research is still, however, very open (in terms of subject and method) and not canon-ised (Caduff, et al. 2010; Leavy 2009). In many cases, the theoretical discussion represents a kind of meta-reflection on current situation, status and institutional nature of artistic research (e.g., Bippus 2009; Caduff, et al. 2010; Dombois, et al. 2011; Holert 2011; Tröndle & Warmers 2011; Peters 2013).4 For example, “Kunst und Forschung. Ein Kriterienkatalog und eine Replik dazu” by Florian Dombois and Philipp Ursprung in Kunstbulletin 4/2006.
10
differences in the theoretical foundation and the types and
ways of process documentation and presentation of results.
To get an overview of the artistic research in Switzerland,5
we have investigated research projects that had received
funding through third-party funds. We deliberately excluded
projects funded by the universities of the arts themselves,
because we wanted less to study the research build-up and
more the content and methodological orientation, as well as
the team composition for successful research acquisition.
The following evaluation and commentary relate to the
respective research projects that we could find via Internet
searches, information garnered from conversations/interviews or
further written sources for the period between 2002 and 2015. For
these purposes, the term ‘artistic research’ was very generously
interpreted. It was also used to apply to artistic and sometimes
design-specific, film-theoretical questions or to inquiry in the
field of applied theatre research. The following reconstruction
discusses the sample with respect to quantifying developments,
to selected thematic issues, approaches and team constellations
without any claim to completeness. Certainly, with the focus on
funded research in Switzerland, many of the precursory efforts
going into artistic research had to be omitted.6
5 A first overview of all the previous research projects that had been carried out at universities of the arts in Switzerland was cre-ated at the end of 2012 for the workshop on the ‘state of affairs’ of artistic research in Switzerland. The list has been supplemented by the newly added projects until spring 2015 for this booklet.6 During the 1980s teaching programmes at HEAD anticipated the foundation of research-based master programmes (e.g. criti-cal curatorial cross-cultural cybermedia studies CCC). And recently appeared a publication about another example of artistic research avant la lettre in the French part of Switzerland: Alain Antille, Sibylle Omlin (Ed.), Hors Piste, la recherche à l’ECAV. ECAV art&fiction pub-lications, 2014.
11
NUMBER AND DEVELOPMENT OF TYPE OF PROJECT FUNDING
Our snapshot revealed about 60 ongoing or already com-
pleted projects in the field of artistic research up through
spring 2015. An increase is reflected in the number of
projects since 2005, after the art education in the universities
of the arts was ‘academised’.
By 2012, three years ago, there were approximately as
many CTI and SNSF projects as there were DORE-financed
projects. After the end of the DORE programme, around ten
more SNSF projects in the field of artistic research through-
out Switzerland have been added to date. At the same time,
there are only a few CTI projects to be listed. In other words,
a development in the direction of SNSF-oriented research
funding can be shown.
Also, it seems worth mentioning that some formerly
DORE-funded projects – thus, projects supported by the
SNSF for research build-up within universities of the arts –
continued to receive funding in a second phase as regular
SNSF projects. Therefore a series of long-term projects may
be listed (e.g., “Denkgeräusche 1” and “Denkgeräusche 2”,
Dombois7 or “Überschuss”, Schenker/Rickli et al. and “Com-
putersignale”, Rickli et al.). There is practically no support to
list dedicated through foundations or trusts, even when they
came up sporadically to cover minor costs within the context
of exhibitions or publications (cantonal cultural promotions,
7 We mention each of the applicants and the project managers’ sur-names but not the whole team as such. The teams are mentioned as ‘et al.’. We ask for their understanding where information is incom-plete. All projects can be found under the name of the applicant in the SNSF-data P3 (Projects, People, Publications) on http://p3.snf.ch.
12
Biennale Bern, Göhner-Stiftung). Scientific communication
of artistic research results is furthermore hardly ever expli-
citly promoted. However, an initial phase of this might be
represented by the SNSF project “Handyfilme” (Schön-
berger/Hengartner/Ritter et al.) recently receiving financial
support from Mercator Foundation for a handbook and an
exhibition as dissemination forms, or the Agora project “The
Trojan Pegasus” (Heimberg).
Thematic issues
For our analysis of the developments of artistic research
in Switzerland we were also investigating the kind of topics
addressed by the researchers in our sample and what in-
quiries they formulate to do so. In the following, no in-depth
discussion should be expected but rather a representation
of the situation as observed.
As mentioned in the beginning, some research projects
were carried out before the official legal performance man-
date for research came into force for universities of the arts
in 2005. The investigation into the “Position et production
de l’artiste dans un contexte périurbain” (Pfründer et al.) was
promoted in 2001 by DORE already. “Perform space: Unter-
sucht Kunst” (Cassens Stoian et al.) ran from 2003 to 2004
with the help of DORE; “Art Public Zurich” (Schenker et al.)
could be performed thanks to the support of CTI from 2003
to 2007 and from 2008 to 2011.
Even though one might expect that artistic research is
dealing with questions about artistic practice and its changes,
as well as with the genesis of artistic work, such a task does
13
not seem to be a field that draws great research interest. Re-
search projects that are devoted to the production of art and
that explore artistic elaboration, as well as work processes, are
not carried out in large numbers. Individually some changes
at the level of artistic practice are investigated (e.g., “Sprech-
kunst. Methoden der sprechkünstlerischen Probenarbeit im
zeitgenössischen deutschsprachigen Theater”, Kiesler/Strässle
et al.) or vice versa, the genesis of social realities through artistic
and entrepreneurial practices (e.g., “Disclosing New Worlds.
Artistic Entrepreneuring through Designed Fictions”, Widmer/
Steyaert/Marti et al., “Mentoratsbeziehungen”, Caffari/Mohs
et al.). Production- aesthetic inquiry also devotes itself to
projects that examine the conditions of the production of art
or consult the context in which art occurs (e.g., “Erlebniswelt
Zentralschweiz”, Spillmann et al.).
At the transition into a field of art historical research that
turns toward contemporary thematic issues lie projects that
pose questions about the institutional context of artistic
understandings and work (e.g., “Kristallisationsorte der
Schweizer Kunst der 1970er Jahre”, Harboe et.al.) or that
inspect the influence of artistic practice on art institutions
(“Institutions of Critique”, Gau; “Off OffOff Of!”, Mader;
“Ästhetik der Dekolonisierung”, von Osten).
Again and again, research-based artists were look-
ing into and engaging with archives and collections (e.g.,
“Archive, histoire projet” Margel, Ribaupierre et al., “Das
Menschenbild im Bildarchiv”, Vogel et al.). Especially in terms
of the first project, it was argued that the archive should no
longer be a simple public repository but could become
rather an experimental space. The sustainable occupation
with archives is noteworthy, especially as art collecting itself
14
or the art market is much less often questioned (exception:
Owning Online Art, Storz/Schwander et al.). Researchers,
however, also create archives (e.g., “Archiv des Ortes”,
Görlich/Wandeler, where collective strategies were de-
signed for a photographic archive of spatial development).
Furthermore, there are a number of projects that may be
listed, which are of a rather technical methodological nature
or work with scientific concepts. These projects concentrate
on concepts from the natural sciences or emanating and
taking inspiration from them. This includes, for instance, con-
frontations with phenomena such as landslides (“Präparat
Bergsturz”, Gisler/Dombois et al.) or avalanches (“Recherche
transdisciplinaire sur les représentations de l’avalanche”,
Margel) with models from the physical sciences as well as
instruments that are usually employed to scientific ends (e.g.,
“Size Matters”, Dombois et al.). Sometimes even (natural-)
scientific theory building is sought via artistic exploration
(“Indirekte Erfahrungen”, Schenker). One related topic could
be confronting questions regarding the nature of or con-
nections between nature itself and society (“RhyCycling”,
Caviezel et al.; “Winterschlaf”, Gisler et al.).
Media data and their visualization would be a media-
specific expression of this thematic mapping, e.g. investi-
gations into computer signals (“Überschuss”, Rickli et al.), big
data visualisations (“Experimental Data Aesthetics”, Mareis/
Miyazaki et al.), the design of biofeedback interfaces (“The
use of biofeedback for a human-centred approach to improv-
ing cardio-vascular magnetic resonance imaging”, Jhooti/
Torpus et al.) or the use of feedback technologies (“Ge-
staltete Unmittelbarkeit. Atmosphärisches Erleben in einer
affektiv-responsiven Umgebung”, Heibach/Simon/Torpus
15
et al.). Interactive presentation formats could be a further
manifestation of this category (e.g., “lifeClipper2” Torpus et.
al.; “living-room1+2”, Galantay/Torpus et al.; “RhyCycling”,
Caviezel et al.).
Artistic research projects furthermore continually focus
relatively directly on current socio-political thematic issues.
At the outset, the questions were raised rather in regard to
art in the public space (CTI project “Kunst Öffentlichkeit
Zürich”, Schenker) or urbanisation tendencies (“Kunst in Stadt-
entwicklungsprozessen”, Mader) and the design of urban
spaces (“UrbanMob New”, Léchot Hirt). At the same time,
societal developments like migration or border cross-
ings were brought into focus (Migration Design, Huber/
Ritter et al.; “Creating Belonging”, Schade; “Grenzgang”,
Florenz/Schwander et al.; “Check on Arrival – Grenzland
Flughafen”, Huber/Caviezel/Kumschick), new communication
media amongst youngsters (“Handyfilme”, Schönberger/
Hengartner/Ritter et al.) and tourism (“Und plötzlich China”
and “Kunst & Tourismus”, Spillmann et al.). Beyond their rather
sociological aspects, these projects obviously also treat the
technical-scientific novelties. Recently, questions regarding
the environment, sustainability and cycles have been taken
up (“RhyCycling” and “Times of Waste”, Caviezel et al.) along
with human-animal relations (“Wir sind im Winterschlaf!”
Gisler et al.). Even religious, ethical and economic develop-
ments are being investigated in various ways by means of
artistic research projects (e.g., “Holyspace-Holyways”, Henke/
Spalinger, “Brands&Branding”, Huber et al., “Politiques et
initiatives mémorielles et pratiques artistiques dans les pro-
cessus de paix et de reconstruction” Queloz/Hazan et al.).
16
Finally, developments are also being addressed which
affect the field of art on the whole, be it in terms of education
policy (“Ästhetische Praktiken nach Bologna: Architektur,
Design und Bildende Kunst als epistemische Kulturen in the
making”, Eberle/Gisler/Bippus et al.) or cultural policy (“Off
OffOff Of? Schweizer Kulturpolitik und Selbstorganisation in
der Kunst seit 1980”, Mader).
Approaches
In many of these projects, there has been and continues
to be a co-existence or side-by-side in terms of artistic and
rather social or humanistic approaches. In some works, topics
are sounded out by means of specific artistic interventions
(“Stadt auf Achse. Kunst in Stadtentwicklungsprozessen”,
Mader et al.; “Wartezeiten”, Klingemann). Additionally, the
artistic work sometimes follows a research phase in which
the topic of interest is dealt with (e.g., “Artists-in-Labs”,
Scott & Hediger). Some projects employ artistic processes as
central elements (“Grenzgang”, Florenz/Schwander et al.;
“Size Matters”, Dombois et al.) while others allow for some
artistic-research methods to be carried out along or borrow-
ing from other methods such as those of the social sciences
(“Wir sind im Winterschlaf!” Gisler et al., “Intermaterialität”,
Strässle et al.). Still others employ a mix of methods (“Traces
and Traceability”, Boulaz et al.) or work comparatively
(“Methods of Reenactment”, Badura).
Very often research takes place with transdisciplinary
concepts and various partners from outside the universities.
This is sometimes due to the format of DORE, which called for
practice partner participation. A question for more profound
17
investigation (we have not done this here) would be to what
degree the number of practice partners changed since DORE
was integrated into the general funding programme of the
SNSF.
The selected practice partners often come from an art-
and culture-oriented context (museums, art spaces etc.), but
they also represent research environments such as scientific
laboratories (“Computersignale”, Rickli et al.) or natural-
scientific disciplines, for example geology („Präparat Berg-
sturz“, Gisler et al.), finally also practice-oriented institutions
such as state offices, NGOs, archives (“Archiv des Ortes”,
Görlich/Wandeler; “Bilder verstehen”, Huber/Vogel et al.;
“RhyCycling”, Caviezel et al.).
Various media ‘products’ have emerged from the projects
and the results are made available in very different forms and
formats (e.g. “Top of Experience oder die Kunst der Erlebnis-
welt”, Spillmann et al.; “Bilder, leicht verschoben”, Vogel/
Binder; “Verletzbare Orte”, Huber/Ziemer et al.; “Now1+2”,
Schenker/Köppl et al.). The outputs have included work-
shops, panel discussions, exhibitions, artistic works, art books
and scientific publications. It becomes apparent that, unlike
the disciplines with longer histories, no clear order can be
discerned in regards to the forms and ways of publication.
Team constellations
When we consider the ongoing or completed projects
that exhibit artistic elements and respectively assert them,
an interesting picture emerges regarding the team constel-
lations. From the beginnings, the project application was
18
often handled by the head of the institute or another leading
person (mostly with an academic background). An increase
in artists as successful project applicants can be observed
recently. For the ‘project leadership’ as differentiated by
‘application of the project’ or official project responsibility,
artists and academics are rather in balance. Generally artists
are engaged as junior or senior researchers more often than
as project leads. That people with a university background
are used for project entry in the field of art research is some-
thing that has not significantly changed in recent years. Camp
& Siska have diagnosed this as the “problem of succession”
within artistic research (Camp/Siska, 2011, p. IV).
Project orientation
The public alignment of projects is very clear, which prob-
ably has to do with the practical orientation of DORE funding
and is reinforced by the public communication of research
results as required by the SNSF. The research results are
often aimed at both expert and lay audiences simultaneously.
Publications are rarely directed toward a particular group of
experts, as the range of disciplines to which artistic research
speaks has not solidified into a specific scientific community.
This shows that the audience as well as the interlocutors of
artistic research outcomes are still in the state of negotiation
and can thus far be considered fairly heterogeneous.
19
HOW AND WHAT TO RESEARCH? EXCERPTS FROM A PANEL DISCUSSION
The concern taken up in the panel discussion as concre-
tisation and continuation of the workshop was a résumé of
the state of the art with discipline specialists and educational
policy experts and a discussion of their expectations and
wishes for future development in artistic research. It was
concerned with debating what consequences could be
drawn for research content and procedures, as well as for the
funding of research.
After roughly a decade of Bologna Reform and over 10
years of research at universities of the arts, brought on by
an increased academic focus, the question arises of whether
a ‘social-science-isation’ or a ‘humanities-isation’ of artistic-
research thinking and practice has been established at these
former art schools. Or rather, vice versa, to ask what the em-
phasis on research has done for works of art, especially for
those that are driven by research or are based explicitly on
research projects.
The discussion took place on 11 June 2013 at the Academy
of Art and Design of the University of Applied Sciences and
Arts Northwestern Switzerland (HGK FHNW), concept and
introduction by Flavia Caviezel and Priska Gisler, moderation
by author and journalist Christoph Keller. The panelists were
Kirsten Langkilde8, Guido Miescher9 and Giaco Schiesser10.
8 Director, Academy of Art and Design, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland HGK FHNW.9 Scientific Consultant, Department National Research and Innova-tion/State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation SERI/SBFI.10 Responsible for the dossier R&D and Director of the Departe-ment Art & Media, Zurich University of the Arts, ZHdK.
20
WHAT IS ARTISTIC RESEARCH?
The following excerpts of the discussion are organised
thematically and slightly linguistically adapted for intelligibi-
lity and to fill in context where necessary.
Verifiability / scientific character
Moderator CHRISTOPH KELLER: “Artistic research”
seems to be not quite evident. What is it that constitutes the
core of this artistic research, in what direction is the whole
thing evolving? Giaco Schiesser, where do the fundamental
problems lie in this direction of research?
GIACO SCHIESSER: Very broadly speaking, there are nat-
ural science approaches, there are humanities and cultural
science approaches and there are artistic [approaches] and
artistic research approaches. And what’s interesting with
artistic research is, if such a thing even exists: it is not the
same as art. As a philosopher, I would say it makes no sense to
have two terms for the same set of facts and circumstances.
Thus, one must be able to describe what the differences
are. At the present time, after 25 years of [international] or 15
years of [Swiss] research, I believe that one should be able to
designate this in general.
First, it takes an explicitly formulated set of research
questions, which is often also present for good art but not
necessarily so. Second, the people who expose themselves
to artistic research have to know the “state of the art”, that
means they have to know what is being researched about the
research topics and settings that they are recommending.
21
What art takes those things up? Third, and this is a very big
problem, I know from my professional experience, super-
vising PhD candidates: When one asks them, where they see
innovation potential, then 90 per cent of the artists break
down. [...] Is that interesting for the art world? For society?
Is it interesting for other disciplines? That means there is an
explanation for that which one is doing – which is for artists in
their artistic practice often only implicitly present.
This means that methodologically there is a very dedi-
cated attitude, which is not shared by all. In accordance with
the epistemologist Gaston Bachelard, who wrote in the 1930s
[…] for every knowledge object, for every research question
that one poses, the methodologies in the research process
must first be developed, […] every knowledge object requires
its own mix of methodologies. This is something that artists,
however, are very familiar with. […] And in artistic research,
the same thing has to be worked out, in the research process.
Kirsten Langkilde: I agree. Early on, I got involved in the
Danish Carlsberg Laboratory, where they are doing gene
manipulation. And there I learnt: Method, that is something
very pragmatic in biochemistry. This also follows for experi-
ments, accidents, coincidence. These surprising moments,
they don’t belong to the artist alone. Now, I’m more relaxed
when it comes to fixed methods.
Traceability
CHRISTOPH KELLER: I’m now a bit heretical. I eventually
learnt that research is based on verifiable methods that can
also be verified externally. I’ve also got a product in front of
22
me that reveals the research process, not just an artifact but
possibly a text where I can trace how the research process
transpired. Mr Miescher, is that research, what is being de-
scribed? Or is it a hybrid between research and art?
GUIDO MIESCHER: I am a representative for two things.
I was Head of Neurobiology in the Cantonal Hospital of
Basel. Neurobiology is basically an exact science. But that’s
the thing, it gets rather complex all of the sudden. And here
I am a representative of the government, thus the tax money
that we spend; and we’re pretty stingy. So far, we have only
ever had to deal with simple communities: federal versus
cantonal and players of the like. Today the players are very
different than they were just a few years ago. We have
European research funding, we have foundations that set the
standards. […] The Bill Gates Foundation sets standards in
many disciplines and is a very good partner in the partner-
ship-based approaches to research.
[…]
CHRISTOPH KELLER: Only there, I would be a bit irritated
if I were a cancer patient at the cantonal hospital when the
chief doctor who examined me said, he worked in artistic
research.
GUIDO MIESCHER: Now I need to mention something
that is discussed very little. One can make statistics with one
variable, two variables, three variables. In cancer, it happened
purely by coincidence that a biologist was using corncobs
to do creative, visual work. There are corncobs with black
kernels between the yellow ones. Barbara McClintock won
the Nobel Prize, because she figured out that there are
23
genetic elements that cause that one corn kernel to be
yellow and another to be black.
There had been decades-long research on chemical
carcinogenesis and she discovered certain causalities. Then
virologists discovered cancer-reducing viruses, and already
we’ve got three variables. Which means, fortunately it all
came together in the 1970s and resulted in a series of Nobel
Prizes. But that is a coincidence and it leads to the circum-
stance that no clinician would ever treat a patient with less
than three medications. And that already is a very difficult
statistic endeavour. In the future, it will probably take four or
five.
CHRISTOPH KELLER: Kirsten Langkilde, I feel you are
listening carefully. What about this depiction is so interesting
to you?
KIRSTEN LANGKILDE: The complexity. We should not
think that there is a simple procedure to follow in research.
And it is about the concerted effort. One has to be willing
to combine energies and talents. For the sake of common
projects. I like that. […] There is an important project that we
have to solve. Why not commit ourselves as a university to it?
There are fields, clusters, and then we bundle the energies
and negotiate with each other. And: How do we give the
researchers from each of the areas their freedom?
CHRISTOPH KELLER: Someone mentioned thematic sub-
ject fields. Clustering, conversing with one another, looking
at a problem from different angles in a way that is open to all
the findings.
24
GIACO SCHIESSER: At certain times, certain approaches
are more plausible than others. […] There are ranges and it is
culturally conditioned which approaches have what meaning
at which points in time. […] That’s why I’m of the opinion
that if artistic research is to prove itself in terms of societal
questions, then it must confront this task.
[…]
KIRSTEN LANGKILDE: Then we have to put the arts out
there and say, what is the discipline’s role. How do we deal
with it? What relevance do the [artistic disciplines] have? […]
To get away from saying, we are not discussing sculpture in
particular or installation art and then the theory/practice for
it. We’ll attempt, for the first time, to get at what’s behind it:
What role do aesthetics have today? […] This should rather
be seen as an arena for negotiation, where one can exercise
an expanded artistic practice while adding these relevant
theoretical elements at the same time. It’s rather a place of
negotiation than a classic definition of different disciplines
– in order to investigate how they are to interact with each
other.
Publication / Public
GIACO SCHIESSER: I would even go as far as to say if
there is something like artistic research that is also distin-
guished from the humanities and the natural sciences, it is
not only of interest for the artistic research community and
the art world, but for society as a whole. That is actually
the deployment that it pursues in my opinion. Because in
addition to the primacy of the economy, we have a primacy
25
of biotechnology after a fashion […], which could turn around
the kind of mono-causal thinking. […] We have a return of the
dominance of biotechnology so that with artistic research
the inquiry, the irritation, the undermining of the debate
would be available, which is societally very interesting. Also
that one has absolutely no problem at all conducting this de-
bate with outstanding people from the natural sciences and
the humanities. This obstinacy of art and artistic research is
essential for me, because if it weren’t, if it were just a helper
science, then it’s superfluous. Then one shouldn’t waste their
life on it.
KIRSTEN LANGKILDE: A topic that is also connected is
publication. […] But how does one evaluate them? With what
form of publication? […] When we say we are working in the
digital field and have innovations as our focal point, then it
can result in differentiated narrative forms, e.g., with the aid
of digital device development. And they need another form
of publication, they have another community, one speaks of
other curatorial practices. […] Another question would be:
How much truth-value does an image have in contrast to text?
And is it the case that the image reflects the text or can
only the text reflect the image? This is up for negotiation.
And perhaps there is such a thing as a cinematic reflection.
There may be new, previously unknown exhibition formats.
That’s where I see huge potential, if one says an artist’s
career doesn’t just take place in galleries and museums, there
are other forms […] like a political intervention, changed pro-
cesses in the public space, which are triggered by the arts.
That is something totally new – that we do not yet know.
Nevertheless, it already has to be validated today as valuable
artistic knowledge in the sense of research.
26
Community building
CHRISTOPH KELLER: The methodological concept is –
to some extent – outworn in the natural sciences because
research contexts are always multi-causal. […] Only the
method per se, since there is the chance that one goes in
circles and does not progress. What is the criterion for
advancement? Of course, a natural scientist can say: Eureka,
I’ve done it. But maybe he won’t experience it himself. It is
indeed in the interaction with a community that creative con-
cepts are found and in the end advancements are made.
GUIDO MIESCHER: If we look at that, we have some-
what of a similar difficulty as the artist himself has. Where is
the scholastic, hermeneutical community to be delineated
and where are we on a path of research and innovation? […]
When Pasteur made his very simple experiments, the world
was not convinced that he got it right. It took decades until
he could prevail. What happened there? A community comes
about that can work on an idea long before it’s chiselled in
stone. Creativity takes its course. And then you realise that the
one community is petrified, sclerosified, scholasticism pure,
while the other gives wings to design, metastasises abroad
and that leads to a paradigm shift. And that is something
we share amongst us again: Paradigm shifts characterise
modernism. Biology, the natural sciences, just like art. This
vitality that speaks to us, that inspires us. And there is where
we’re in emotional tones.
GIACO SCHIESSER: Hans-Jörg Rheinberger has said,
for example, there are epistemically recalcitrant qualities
between the natural sciences and the humanities, so very
fundamental differences. And the same applies to art and
27
artistic research. One has to point that out. And at the same
time, they have to establish connectivity. Interdisciplinarity
and transdisciplinarity is only conceivable if one can point
out specificities and, at the same time, where is the interest
in working together.
[…]
GUIDO MIESCHER: We have experienced that these
partnership developments sometimes take awhile. Paradigm
shift, that happens all the time. […] this is where scientists,
academics as well as outsiders, politicians, can come for-
ward. If one brings the communities together for longer, they
realise how they can learn from it. We don’t have a situation,
where we can act from the ministry side. In Switzerland, we
do well with bottom-up. The role of the federal government
in a supervisory view is to set the legislative framework and
not pose too many questions. […] We cannot distribute widely
according to the shotgun principle. That means learning how
things develop and see where there is a dynamic and where
our support could be the crucial push.
GIACO SCHIESSER: Someone give the Secretary of State
a pat on the back. Compared to five years ago, the federal
organisations, i.e. CTI, DORE, SNSF, learnt an awful lot. There
is no question that artistic research is taken seriously in the
Swiss National Science Foundation and funds are deployed
and exploited for it. Interestingly what is happening now is
that the EU has this crazy policy with flagship projects, from
which one in three goes to Lausanne. It is one billion that the
EU is investing in 10 years and Switzerland has to raise 500
million itself – that called the Swiss National Science Foun-
dation and a few federal institutions into action. […] What
28
does that mean for the Swiss research landscape? It has been
supported by the board of the ETH [Federal Institute of
Technology], and the universities, that this bottom-up con-
cept is the foundation of why Switzerland is doing so well in
terms of research […] The flagship project has actually rather
strengthened the willingness to continue to follow this route.
KIRSTEN LANGKILDE: That’s why I went to Switzerland
two years ago. It’s obvious: Compared to the Berlin view or a
Scandinavian one, there’s just another, healthy dynamic here.
Not in Germany, that’s obvious.
CHRISTOPH KELLER: But what does bottom-up mean in
the field of artistic research? Is it a different process than what
happens in classical universities? What is the difference?
GIACO SCHIESSER: Two examples that immediately
make the seriousness clear: In Great Britain, the government
decided that, with regard to all of the universities, the natural
sciences would be funded, the humanities would be funded
and the arts, including artistic research, would be completely
taken out of national funding. The universities of the arts are
being forced under penalty of their own collapse to privatise
all of their financing, completely.
Second example: In Germany, the DFG [German Research
Foundation] decided that artistic research is not an area that
they want to promote. They are very sceptical. At the same
time, the Volkswagen Foundation and the Schering Foun-
dation have decided that these are interesting alternative
approaches – keyword epistemically recalcitrant qualities.
At the Volkswagen Foundation, this is a bit hidden because
they cannot call it thusly, since otherwise they would have to
29
change the foundation’s mission. That’s a quick look at two
national situations that are fundamentally different and have
massive impacts.
Kirsten Langkilde: But to add to Scandinavia: Ther
is massive public support there. There is a tacit under-
standing that culture is a very important area. The role of
the ministries of culture in Scandinavia is very different than
here. This is due to the monarchies, maybe. [Laughter from
the audience] Who knows? Major promotion of culture is the
norm. There is also this respect there, one can also see it as
a kind of bottom-up thinking. One questions the community
and asks them to take part in the structures. The ministries
delegate expert groups and solicit advice from expert com-
munities. They gather the expert knowledge and initiate
processes [between the participants]. And then they talk
about funding – there is quite a lot of funding.
[…]
GUIDO MIESCHER: We see it rather in terms of inter-
disciplinarity and defining HOW to incorporate communities.
When one involves a pure discipline-oriented academic in
the evaluation of an interdisciplinary area, there will be a lot
of blockage. Thus it is important that the communities de-
termine their standard peers with whom they are prepared
to collaborate.
GIACO SCHIESSER: In the Fine Arts field in Switzer-
land today, it is not possible to set up research groups be-
cause people indulge an individualistic artist perception.
They want to do their own promotion. I also wanted to build
up a research group, but it was unthinkable. I had to find
30
an intermediate form. In the collaborative arts, in dance,
theatre and music, where collaboration is part of artistic
practice, this is much quicker and more possible. […] Thus,
there will be a sophisticated field, where the development
– which is already the case today – will be very greatly differ-
entiated. And if there is a failure within the fine arts to make
a fundamental break with the cult of genius, which today’s
students seem again more eager to follow than at other
times, then interdisciplinarity or transdisciplinarity will never
be possible. In that case, they only want to do their classic,
personal work.
GUIDO MIESCHER: The SPP [strong focus research pro-
gramme] priority programmes of the ’90s were a fiasco, a
Stalinist one. In that case, someone developed the research
priorities. And then suddenly, they had a post-doc scene. If
critical masses emerge in individual disciplines in different
ways, communities develop, [...] there will be a dynamic –
and the Swiss National Science Foundation will hopefully
continue to listen.
CHRISTOPH KELLER: We’ve heard the keywords: An end
of the cult of genius, more promotion, more collaboration.
Many thanks to the panel.
31
ARTISTIC RESEARCH AS ACADEMISATION – SOME CONCLUDING CONSIDERATIONS
If we take stock of this brief look at the development of
artistic research in Switzerland and the debates about the
current situation and the future, some aspects seem to come
to the fore that we would like to sum up here:
Artistic working processes themselves have only recently
gained precedence as objects of new research projects and
can probably be interpreted as an increased move toward
basic research. They confront a great many inquiries, dealing
with socio-political aspects, as well as those that are closely
related to thematic issues belonging to the natural sciences.
Along with this, a great joy in experimental approaches
and the exploration of epistemological procedures can be
shown.
Very often the projects and team constellations are inter-
and transdisciplinary. The question of whether transdiscipli-
narity – i.e., research that explicitly includes external partners
– will decrease as the DORE programme is incorporated into
regular SNSF funding, however, cannot yet be answered, but
it must necessarily be posed.
We think the following point is particularly important:
The number of SNSF projects has increased in recent years.
Over time, that increase has tended toward basic research;
whereas, surprisingly there has simultaneously been a
decrease in CTI projects, which themselves are rather appli-
cation oriented and directed toward very specific addressees
as well. And as per usual, there is still very little foundation
funding to speak of. The tendency toward an academisation
32
that one could imagine to be due to the increase in SNSF-
financed projects is also supported by a further finding:
The responsibility for research projects falls to a majority
of classic-academically trained researchers, even if they can
sometimes and increasingly boast a more artistic profile or
develop one. Artists trained at universities of the arts are still
mostly in the role of academic employees.
Some of these topics were also taken up in the panel
discussion. Not completely disregarding scientific rules, to
which belong the clear line of inquiry for any research project,
recognition of the state of the art and a formulation of the
approach, has also clearly been spoken to. That this never-
theless – as in other research disciplines – is to be coupled
to the moment and appreciation for coincidences, of devia-
tions, of luck has also been stressed. That research is not
the same as art has furthermore been reiterated, however, it
allows for an expanded artistic practice to be exercised and
for this to be extended with theoretical elements. This seems
important to us as a manifestation for the further promotion
of artistic research.
The uncertainties that artistic research (still) encounters
can be traced, according to the panel participants, to various
research support mechanisms in the countries where the
research is undertaken time and again – such as declining
Government support, change to the funding conditions, etc.
That the inquiry – the irritation – should be permitted against
mono-causal explanations and earmarked interests of the
cooperation partners is where the panel participants were in
agreement, because it characterises the current situation of
artistic research in Switzerland.
33
The reference to Pasteur, whose ground-breaking
contributions against infectious diseases were strongly called
into question for a long period, recalled that the difficulty of
prevailing not only distinguishes the state of artistic research:
Other scientific disciplines were also deeply questioned for
a long time or put through harsh critique and yet triumphed
and indeed prevailed in the course of a central paradigm shift.
Thus, it will be interesting to observe how artistic research
positions itself in the future and whether this still largely un-
cannonised concept will be able to succeed in competing for
research funding.
34
REFERENCES
Antille, Alain, Omlin, Sybille (Eds.), Hors Piste, la recherche
à l’ECAV, ECAV art&fiction publications, 2014.
Bippus, Elke (Ed.), Kunst des Forschens. Praxis eines ästhe-
tischen Denkens, Zürich: Schriftenreihe des Instituts für Gegenwartskunst ZHdK, 2009.
Borgdorff, Henk‚ A Brief Survey of Current Debates on the
Concepts and Practices of Research in the Arts, in Wilson, Mick, van Ruiten, Schelte (Eds.), SHARE. Handbook for
Artistic Research Education, Amsterdam, Dublin, Gothen-burg, 2013, p. 146–152.
Caduff, Corina et al., Art and Artistic Research, Zurich, ZHdK/Scheidegger & Spiess, 2010.
Camp, Marc-Antoine/KFH (Ed.), Forschung an Schweizer
Kunsthochschulen. Bericht und Empfehlungen, im Auftrag
von KFH (Kunsthochschulen Schweiz), 2009. Report at: http://www.swissuniversities.ch/fileadmin/swissuniversities/Do-kumente/DE/FH/Publikationen/20090304_fe-khs_bericht_de_3.pdf.
Camp, Marc-Antoine, Siska, Blanka, Forschungsförderung im
Kunstbereich, Bestandesaufnahme 2010/2011, STWR-Schrift 4/2011.
Dombois, Florian et al. (Eds.), Intellectual Birdhouse: Artistic
Practice as Research, London: Koenig Books, 2011.
35
Dombois, Florian, Ursprung, Philipp, Kunst und Forschung.
Ein Kriterienkatalog und eine Replik dazu, in Kunst- bulletin 2006/4. http://www.kunstbulletin.ch/router.cfm?a= 060315151830PAX-2.
Frayling, Christopher, Research in Art & Design. Research
Paper Vol. 1 Nr. 1, London: Royal College of Art London, 1993.
Holert, Tom, Künstlerische Forschung: Anatomie einer
Konjunktur, in Texe zur Kunst (82), 2011, p. 38–63.
Leavy, Patricia, Method Meets Art. Arts-based Research
Practice, New York, London: The Guilford Press, 2009.
Peters, Sibille, Das Forschen aller. Artistic Research als
Wissensproduktion zwischen Kunst, Wissenschaft und
Gesellschaft, Bielefeld: transcript, 2013.
Tröndle, Martin, Warmers, Julia (Eds.) , Kunstforschung als
ästhetische Wissenschaft: Beiträge zur transdisziplinären
Hybridisierung von Wissenschaft und Kunst, Bielefeld: transcript, 2011.
Wilson, Mick, van Ruiten, Schelte, SHARE. Handbook for
Artistic Research Education, Amsterdam, Dublin, Gothen-burg, 2013.
Flavia Caviezel – ethnologist/vidéaste, senior researcher and
lecturer at the Institute of Experimental Design and Media
Cultures HGK FHNW with a focus on border issues, political
ecology and (interactive) media formats.
Priska Gisler, Dr. rer. soc. – sociologist, researcher in Science
and Technology Studies, since 2009 Head of FSP Intermedi-
ality at Bern University of the Arts.
Many thanks to Luzia Hürzeler for her support in the survey,
to Helena Schmidt for her transcription of the panel
discussion and to all the members of SARN board for their
comments.
Published by SARN – Swiss Artistic Research Network, www.sarn.chSARN WORKSHOP BOOKLETS editors: Julie Harboe, Federica MartiniEditors „All you need is (art) research?“: Flavia Caviezel, Priska Gisler Translation: Jacob WatsonDesign: Kathrin Borer & Andreas HagenbachPrint: Vögtli Druck, BaselCover colour: Pantone 2026 UPublished in Basel, Switzerland 2015ISBN 978-3-9524411-4-5
© 2015 SARN – Swiss Artistic Research Network and the authors
SARN :: Swiss Artistic Research Network
SARN :: Swiss Artistic Research Network
www.sarn.ch